This page compiles ongoing legal updates related to the dismantling of USAID, federal employee rights, and broader cases impacting the civil service. It includes case trackers, legal summaries, and relevant court decisions—all organized to help you stay informed about litigation outcomes and how they may affect your employment, benefits, or agency.

Litigation Trackers

• USAID Case Tracker: Regularly updated information on relevant USAID court cases
• Just Security: Litigation Tracker: Tracks legal challenges to Trump administration actions

Looking for a past update? Contact volunteers@ourusaidcommunity.org

To join find out more here.

Our USAID Community Legal Update – December 2025

This month’s legal update provides a snapshot of where key USAID-related cases stand as of December 2025. It highlights recent court activity, ongoing appeals, and related proceedings affecting USAID staff, partners, and implementers, with an eye toward what accountability may still be possible in the months ahead.

Our USAID Community Legal Update – June 27, 2025

?? What just happened at the Supreme Court? And what does it mean for USAID? On the last day of the Supreme Court’s term, it issued the final opinions of the term, including on the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. CASA. The arguments that the Supreme Court heard in May actually did not address the question of whether the President’s executive order on birthright citizenship was constitutional–the Government has not appealed courts’ rulings on that question. Instead, the Government appealed to the Supreme Court requesting a stay of the universal (nationwide) injunction that barred the Executive Order taking effect throughout the country. The majority opinion found that universal injunctions likely exceed the power that Congress has granted to the federal courts–and that judges must limit the relief they grant to the individuals and organizations who file lawsuits.

What does this mean for USAID? Right now, there is only one injunction in effect in the USAID dismantling cases–in the cases involving USAID implementing partners. In those cases, the Trump v. CASA decision raises a serious question–whether the injunction that is still in place in that case applies to implementing partners who are not plaintiffs in the case. That question will now have to be decided by Judge Ali, who will have to apply this brand new precedent as he considers these two cases.

This ruling does raise some questions for the injunction in the California RIF case. But even there, there are at least two issues that the plaintiffs in that case will likely raise in arguing that the injunction in that case should stand. The majority in Trump v. CASA make clear that their decision does not consider whether the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action. The APA enables a court to set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Many of the cases being brought against the Trump Administration’s dismantling of agencies and firing of federal employees, including the California RIF case and all of the constitutional cases involving USAID’s dismantling, rely on the APA–so it is not at all clear that this new bar on nationwide injunctions would apply to cases brought for violations of the APA.

It also appears that the Trump v. CASA opinion does allow for broad injunctions when these are required to provide relief to plaintiffs in a case, even when these plaintiffs are states and unions–many of whom have sued for relief in the dismantling and RIF cases. If this is the case, it does not appear that the Trump v. CASA decision would necessarily bar the injunction in the California RIF case, which was brought by unions on behalf of their members.

However, it is now possible that the Government may argue that these injunctions do not apply to employees who are not members of a union. (And–just to note–there is a whole separate line of cases that seek to strip unions of their collective bargaining rights–see #4 below). We’ll all be keeping a close eye on the California case; as we’ve reported previously, that case is with the Supreme Court on its emergency docket, so we will likely be hearing from the Court about the Government’s motion for a stay of that injunction soon.

?? USIP injunction stayed in DC: On June 27, a three judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals approved a stay of the injunction in the USIP v. Jackson case pending appeal. The case seeks to challenge the President’s removal of USIP’s board members and the actions taken by leadership installed in their place. The Appeals Court judges found that the President can remove executive officers at will. The judges cast aside the extensive opinion of the District Court judge that USIP is in fact not an executive agency, noting USIP’s extensive work in the foreign policy arena. Finally, the judges found that the President’s inability to control USIP’s exercise of executive powers undermine the President’s ability to pursue his foreign policy objectives.

 ?? We are all still waiting on Judge Nichols: In the AFSA/AFGE v Trump case, the plaintiffs had asked Judge Nichols to rule on their summary judgment motion by June 15, but that date has come and gone. Once a decision is made in this case, the losing party will very likely appeal.

 ?? Union busting cases: injunctions stand!

?? DC District Court denies stay in AFSA union busting case: The DC District Court denied the Government’s request for a stay of its injunction pending appeal, since the DC Circuit Court of Appeals already has received an appeal from the Government. This denial of stay means that the union can continue to represent its members–which is critical given many of the current challenges faced by AFSA members (including related to employee investigations).

 ?? Injunction restores AFGE Collective Bargaining Rights: In California, Judge Donato of the Northern District of California blocked the Trump Administration’s Executive Order that sought to strip collective bargaining rights from federal employees. This order restores the rights of members of AFGE and four other federal unions. While the Government had argued that a law that excludes employees of federal agencies from collective bargaining when the President determines that the primary function of their agency is national security, Judge Donato found that the President’s own statements about the unions made clear that the motivation for the Executive Order is instead retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment.

 ?? Implementing Partner cases:

?? Amicus briefs filed in the Global Health Council case. Thanks in part to the efforts of several OUC volunteers in engaging State Attorneys General, an amicus brief has been filed by AGs of 22 states and DC, arguing the unconstitutionality of impounding appropriated funds and demonstrating the impact this impoundment is having on universities, farms, and non-profits, noting that universities in amici states have lost $550 M and that non-profits have lost hundreds of millions more.

 ?? In the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition case, plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the Preliminary Injunction granted in the case. The Government has until June 23 to respond, including details on how they are bringing themselves into compliance with the provisions of the injunction enjoining the Government from impounding FY24 funds, and what the Government will do before the end of the fiscal year to comply with the Preliminary Injunction.

 0?? The latest in the “Big RIF” case–and State’s challenge to its injunction: In the AFGE and AFL-CIO v. Trump case, Judge Illston’s injunction is now pending on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, with a decision expected any day. The State Department has argued that this injunction should not apply to them because Secretary Rubio rather than OPM approved the RIF at State. After a hearing on June 13, Judge Illston issued a new order enjoining State from proceeding with layoffs. Given the Trump v. CASA decision on June 27, we might expect the government to be bringing new challenges in this case soonest).

?? Our USAID Community Legal Update – May 21, 2025

?? AFSA/AFGE Lawsuit: the Government filed its reply brief on May 12, arguing that Plaintiffs have not established that the District Court has jurisdiction over the case, as Plaintiffs are bringing employment and contract claims that could be brought elsewhere, that claims cannot be brought under the Administrative Procedure Act since USAID’s dismantling is not final, and that the Administration has broad discretion to reorganize the Agency and decide not to spend funds.  At this stage, Judge Nichols has received briefs from both parties–he may hear oral arguments or decide on the summary judgment.  Plaintiffs have requested a ruling by June 15.

Updates on related cases:

 ?? National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump: On May 16, a stay was issued in one of the cases brought to challenge the Trump Administration’s executive order stripping collective bargaining rights from federal employee unions. 

 Two of the panel’s three judges wrote that the Trump administration is likely to win its appeal on the grounds that the union has failed to prove that they have suffered the irreparable harm necessary for a preliminary injunction to be issued–because those harms would only materialize after an agency terminates a collective bargaining agreement, and the government directed agencies to refrain from terminating collective bargaining agreements or decertifying bargaining units until after the litigation concludes.  (Note: federal agencies have ceased abiding by those contracts in practice, including by abandoning participation in arbitrated grievance hearings, ceasing collective bargaining negotiations and ceasing collecting union dues from employee paychecks.)  

The judges also argued that the injunction amounts to an “irreparable harm on the president by impeding his national-security prerogatives, which were explicitly recognized by Congress.” The stay will allow the administration to resume implementation of the order while the appeals panel considers the case. It is worth noting that the District Court judge who issued the injunction, Judge Friedman, is also the judge in AFSA’s collective bargaining case, where he similarly found that the Administration’s reliance on a rarely used provision of the Civil Service Reform Act to ban unions at a number of federal agencies under the guise of national security, served as a pretext for retaliating against the unions for filing lawsuits to block the President’s effort to slash federal jobs and gut civil service protections, and granted a preliminary injunction on May 14.  Status reports are due in the AFSA case by June 9. 

?? USIP Summary Judgment granted: On May 19, Judge Howell of the DC District Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs in the USIP case–Ambassador Moose, USIP Board members who had been dismissed, and USIP.

Judge Howell’s opinion thoroughly considers the question of whether USIP is in fact an agency within the Executive Branch (in which case President Trump would have greater authority to dismiss members of the USIP Board)–and found that because USIP is not part of the Executive Branch, the President had no authority to remove Board members.  Thus, the actions taken by the Board members installed since then–the removal of USIP President Moose, his replacement with USAID Deputy Administrator Ken Jackson and then DOGE staffer Nate Cavanaugh, the termination of USIP staff and the transfer of USIP’s building to GSA, are unlawful and declared null and void.

While this judgment will likely be cited by other small Agencies similarly targeted by DOGE, it is not clear what the impact of this judgment would be for USAID, which is much more squarely within the executive branch. It is likely the Government will appeal this judgment, and it can be expected that the Administration will continue to push to reduce USIP’s operations to the limits of its statutorily required functions.